southern champs

[distracted]

If parents have an issue with the guidelines on course lengths at championship events for the junior classes then they should get in touch with the appropriate body (Junior Competitions Group) to make their concerns known. However, the guidelines for the Area Champs have already been changed, reducing the adjusted course lengths for M16 so that they are in line with the British, after the 2011 guidelines were accidentally pre-trialled at last year's Southern Champs (M16 won in 59 mins there).

It should be noted that these are championship events and therefore the 'A' classes are designed to find the best person in that age group. So I presume there'll be similar complaints come May if the British Champs are also planned to guidelines?

[DM]

If the courses were shorter there would not be the discussion now. It would come after the event with people commenting on fast winning times.

M16 class is for 14, 15 and 16 year olds. I wouldn't be keen on my now 15 year old running 9.1 races when he was 14 but a year on he is well able to do this, along with many others in 2nd year M16. Let's wait for the results.

It's a big step up from M14 to M16 and it's usually when they make this change that they start beating their slowing/ageing dads by ever increasing margins. They also start putting rude comments on Attackpoint about the person who drives them to events, feeds them etc normally about lack of speed......

[awk]

Expecting a 14 year old to compete over 9.1km with 280m climb is barking mad. I don't believe any other national athletics body would sanction this.

Totally agree. Urban also asks if people are happy. I have not been for many, many years (it was one of the arguments used to support the introduction of non-age class based competition for juniors around a decade ago). The argument about building progression to M21E is totally fallacious: human beings do not progress in straight lines (or even smooth curves), and even as M21s they have several years before they reach their peak. Preparation for elite orienteering (for any orienteering) should not be about the survival of those who happen not to crack up, but for many years it's been just that.

Whilst Roger is right about the softer surfaces, it doesn't lessen the fact that many young orienteers suffer from knee and similar injuries, all of which are classically caused by excessive running, remembering that in order to compete over these distances, the juniors also 'need' to train. Whilst growing.

No disrespect to Steve - he's worked hard to get the distances right in relation to the guidelines. It's just that the guidelines for juniors are, and have for a long time, been completely wrong. As an adult though I'm really looking forward to my course of 10.3k and 390m of climb - my longest in quite a while (and almost exactly 40 years since I last ran there in my third ever badge event).

Congratulations Miner - I admire and respect your decision.

[Urban]

Absolutely, total respect to Miner.
And respect to the planner as he's clearly worked hard on applying the guidelines and using past results.

[EddieH]

Events have winning times for a top elite as the basis for all course lengths and then go in ratio.

The fact is Hambldon is exceptionally fast and easy going and not just for the elite. Less fit adults will in fact be proportionally nearer to elite winning times than in a tough Scottish forest where the course could correctly be under half the distance.

I have too often been disappointed by the failure to take the runnability of areas into account resulting in short elite courses and correxpondingly winning times in M55 say being 50 minutes or less in a "long" championship.

Personally I think that a winning time under the hour is absurd in major championships when we have sorint and middle formats. We do not lose stamina as we get older (other than through sedentary lifestyles) - we do lose speed.

Half the perceived problem is because week in week pout there are brown courses which get nowhere close to the recommended times - sometimes winning times are appropriate to green so that by the time you get to the nominated green course it is a fraction of its specification. People get used to running less and less distance, and those that want an athetic challenge find it harder and harder to come by in their age classes. We do at least have the opportunity to run up but then the serious competition is gone - I am running black at SOLs this year, but competitively my target is not to be last - not the ideal high pressure challenge for honing competition speed, but at least enjoyable training.

[Gnitworp]

We do not lose stamina as we get older

I'm afraid BO in the Guidelines think you do because the recommended winning times reduce. Our winner (M65) is only allowed to be out for 55 - 65 min compared with your 60 - 70 min

[AndyC]

EWe do not lose stamina as we get older (other than through sedentary lifestyles) - we do lose speed.

I think Eddie has already answered your comment Gnitworp - as we get older, to earn a living, most of us become increasingly sedentary -BO are trying to reflect that. However as I am regularly in awe of retired orienteers who because they don't have to spend time behind a desk or steering wheel (in my case around 18hours per week) appear to reverse the ageing process and get fitter and faster - more credit to them.

[Nimby]

I see the Final Details have been updated again, but there are no revision bars.

It would be really useful to highlight what's changed from previous versions when the Final Details are many pages long.

[awk]

Personally I think that a winning time under the hour is absurd in major championships when we have sorint and middle formats. We do not lose stamina as we get older (other than through sedentary lifestyles) - we do lose speed.

That may be true in Scotland Eddie (is there a Scottish Middle Distance Champs?), but at present that's not true of the rest of the UK. I look forward to Sprint and Middle distance championships for all the areas, not just at British level.

Having said that, I think the argument on this thread has moved on - I don't think anybody is arguing against winning times of an hour or so here for adults on the long courses at the area long distance championships. Personally, I agree with you - if we have proper sprint and middles, then the long needs to be an hour or so.

[Homer]

Thanks to TVOC for what seemed a high quality Level A event.
I really enjoyed my course which I thought was excellently planned. Nice to have a proper long route choice leg which split the top few competitors. Bart and Lisa's courses also looked very well planned.

As for winning times, most of the senior classes were at the shorter end of guideline recommendations. M16 was at the top end of guidelines, but one or two of the top competitors were absent. So I think congratulations are due to the Planner.

[madmike]

So I think congratulations are due to the Planner.

second that

[awk]

Thanks to TVOC for what seemed a high quality Level A event.....So I think congratulations are due to the Planner.

Stonking course - loved every second of it. Definite congratulations. Lots of really good aspects in other areas of the event - not least the view of over 20 kites soaring over the car park (!) - which gave it a genuine big event feel. Really glad we made the trip.

Seems a bit churlish to mention it - but the start was a shambles, at least around 11.10-11.20, with checks on start times non-existent. They'd have been better off using a punching start in the circumstances.

[mister blobs]

Seems a bit churlish to mention it - but the start was a shambles, at least around 11.10-11.20, with checks on start times non-existent. They'd have been better off using a punching start in the circumstances.

The start was a disaster. There were people moving between start boxes and could, quite innocently, started 1 minute early or late.
Some entrants weren't allowed through until the following minute had already been called.
Emit cards weren't woken up.
Start officials didn't know which control descriptions were where so people were hunting all over for control descriptions which were distributed widely around the start box.
The path where pre-start was located was too narrow and people had to push their way through which meant our M10 got pushed out of the way when it was his start time.

[IanD]

As a general point, not having a dig at this event in particular, I have long thought that all events should have punching starts. By all means insist on people starting on a particular minute, and penalise people who miss their starts, but do actually punch at the start.

Advantages include:
- avoiding any possibility of gaining a minute by skipping a box
- for an EMIT event, ensuring that the brikke is cleared and started
- for events with constrained space, allowing the minute's worth of people to spread over perhaps thirty seconds without penalties, much reducing collisions at the map boxes.

[King Penguin]

Agree with Ian,
and also far easier to deal with any unforseen delays.